Yoma 6b — the Talmud in English

Rather, is it not for the matter of the time

of

their immersion

that the tanna informed us that the law of one who has intercourse with a menstruant is that he immerses during the day, like one impure through contact with a corpse.

And we answer:

No.

Rather,

always

interpret the baraita as stating that they are alike only

with regard to their impurity:

And

the latter clause was necessary for him

for the tanna to inform us, and therefore he taught this matter in the first clause:

For we learned in the latter clause of the baraita:

Rather, he is more severe than he,

[from one impure through contact with a corpse], the law of

one who has intercourse with a menstruant is —

that he imparts impurity to bedding and seating,

even if he did not touch them with his body. Whereas one impure through contact with a corpse imparts impurity only through his contact.

Rather, nevertheless he differs from the other sources of impurity that impart impurity to bedding and seating, for they impart severe impurity to their bedding and seating, and they become a primary source of impurity, to impart impurity even to a person and vessels, whereas one who has intercourse with a menstruant imparts impurity to his bedding and seating only

with light impurity,

for the bedding becomes only a first degree of impurity —

to impart impurity to food and drink

alone.

And furthermore, we raise an objection:

Come and hear

from this,

for Rabbi Hiyya taught: the man with a flux, the woman with a flux, the man afflicted with scale-disease, the woman afflicted with scale-disease, one who has intercourse with a menstruant, and one impure through contact with a corpse —

their immersion is during the day

on the seventh day,

a menstruant and a woman after childbirth immerse at night.

And we conclude:

a refutation

of Rav Shimi of Nehardea!

And we ask further:

And while you separate him from

[his wife, so that he should not become impure through her with]

the impurity of his household,

through the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant —

separate him

during those seven days before Yom Kippur also

from

[other people, because perhaps one of them will die upon him, and the priest will become impure through]

the impurity of the dead,

which too is an impurity lasting seven days, and it will turn out that the High Priest is impure on Yom Kippur.

Rav Taḥlifa, the father of Rav Huna, said in the name of Rava:

There is a great difference between the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant and the impurity of the dead with regard to service on Yom Kippur.

For the offerings of Yom Kippur are communal offerings, and even the offerings of the High Priest, which are individual offerings, nevertheless their time is fixed, and their law is like that of a communal offering with regard to impurity.

And the Sages expounded that communal offerings override impurity, and they are offered even if the priests are impure through the impurity of the dead. Rather, this law—that a communal offering overrides impurity—applies only to the impurity of the dead, and not to the impurity of a menstruant or other impurities that emerge from his body.

And therefore, even if the High Priest becomes impure through the impurity of the dead, he is not disqualified from serving on Yom Kippur. Only if he becomes impure through the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant is he disqualified from serving.

Yet nevertheless one may ask: it is preferable, from the outset, to avoid service in impurity, and therefore it would have been proper to separate him so that he would not need to resort to this overriding.

And concerning this we answer:

That is to say: the impurity of the dead,

which is overridden on account of communal offerings, is not merely in the category of “overriding” [for then, from the outset, it would have been proper to make an effort that it be performed in purity].

Rather,

it is permitted

entirely

for the community,

and there is no need whatsoever to make an effort to perform it in purity. Therefore, we do not need to separate him so that he should not become impure.

Ravina said:

It cannot be proven from here that the overriding of impurity in communal offerings is a complete permission. For

even if you say that the impurity of the dead is overridden

with difficulty

for the community,

and everything that we are able to do in purity, we do; nevertheless, one should not separate him before Yom Kippur because of this concern, and only because of the uncertainty of the impurity of a menstruant is it proper to separate him.

Because

because the impurity of the dead is not common,

and only

the impurity of his household is common,

to the extent that we are concerned about it and separate him because of the uncertainty.

It was stated: the impurity of the dead,

Rav Naḥman said: it is permitted for the community.

Rav Sheshet said: it is overridden for the community.

And there are two formulations as to the manner in which Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed: whether the permission is a complete permission, or whether the impurity is merely overridden with difficulty.

According to the first formulation, Rav Naḥman concedes

where there are impure and pure people in that priestly family

whose duty is to serve on that day —

everyone agrees,

since it is easily possible to perform the offering in purity, and there is no need to bring pure people from another priestly family, the impurity is not overridden; rather, we say

that the pure serve,

and

and the impure do not serve.

When do they disagree

with regard to

seeking

[to seek]

and bringing pure people from another priestly family.

Rav Naḥman said:

that service in impurity is

a permission

complete

for the community,

and we are not required to trouble ourselves to perform it in purity.

And

therefore,

we do not seek

to bring pure priests from another priestly family.

Because this was the order of the service in the Temple: the priests were divided into twenty-four watches. And each watch would serve during a different week, from Shabbat to Shabbat.

The watch itself was divided into priestly families, and each day a different priestly family would serve.

It follows that, from the outset, a priest from the priestly family of another day was not supposed to serve on the day of this priestly family.

And for this reason, if impurity occurred in this priestly family, one should not seek other pure priests.

And Rav Sheshet said:

service in the impurity of the dead is not a complete permission, and although the impurity is overridden, it is overridden with difficulty;

it is overridden for the community.

And it is proper to make an effort so that the service be performed in purity,

and

therefore

we seek

even to bring pure priests from another priestly family.

There are those who say:

Even where there are pure and impure people in that priestly family,

whose duty is to serve on this day, nevertheless

Rav Naḥman disagreed

with Rav Sheshet,

and said

that

that the impure priests also serve

the

the impure priests.